Search Results

Search found 4674 results on 187 pages for 'attr accessible'.

Page 43/187 | < Previous Page | 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50  | Next Page >

  • Application losing Printer within Terminal Services for remote users

    - by Richard
    Question: What I need to do is have a permanent link to a printer, normally only accessible through Terminal Services (Printer Redirect), to allow Sage Line 50 layouts to see that printer persistently, even after users have disconnected and reconnected to the Terminal Services session? Although the printer is accessible each time a user connects to the Sage Server via Terminal Services, it is given a different session number and therefore the Sage Layout sees it as a different printer. History behind question: Users using Terminal Services connecting to a Sage Server on a different site Using Sage Line 50 v 15 on that Server Users want to print invoices (sage layouts) locally Sage Server cannot see the users local printers, to get around this user uses the Print redirect features of Terminal Services The individual reports can be edited to point to a specific printer by default. This means the user just has to select an invoice and click print, then select the layout/report wanted and it auto prints that invoice to the default printer specified. The problem occurs because the layouts are edited to point to the users local printer "Ricoh 1018d (session#)", note the "(session#)" as this is the users local printer being redirected through the terminal services session. Users are able to print using the sage layouts once the default printer is setup within the layout and saved, but as soon as the users disconnects from the Terminal Services session and then reconnect in the morning go to print, it has lost the connection to that printer. I understand why its failed, because that the printer is on a per session basis and the layout would not be able to hold on to the connection from a previous session. Thanks in advance for any assistance...

    Read the article

  • How to whitelist external access to an internal webserver via Cisco ACLs?

    - by Josh
    This is our company's internet gateway router. This is what I want to accomplish on our Cisco 2691 router: All employees need to be able to have unrestricted access to the internet (I've blocked facebook with an ACL, but other than that, full access) There is an internal webserver that should be accessible from any internal IP address, but only a select few external IP addresses. Basically, I want to whitelist access from outside the network. I don't have a hardware firewall appliance. Until now, the webserver has not needed to be accessible externally... or in any case, the occasional VPN has sufficed when needed. As such, the following config has been sufficient: access-list 106 deny ip 66.220.144.0 0.0.7.255 any access-list 106 deny ip ... (so on for the Facebook blocking) access-list 106 permit ip any any ! interface FastEthernet0/0 ip address x.x.x.x 255.255.255.248 ip access-group 106 in ip nat outside fa0/0 is the interface with the public IP However, when I add... ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.0.52 80 x.x.x.x 80 extendable ...in order to forward web traffic to the webserver, that just opens it up entirely. That much makes sense to me. This is where I get stumped though. If I add a line to the ACL to explicitly permit (whitelist) an IP range... something like this: access-list 106 permit tcp x.x.x.x 0.0.255.255 192.168.0.52 0.0.0.0 eq 80 ... how do I then block other external access to the webserver while still maintaining unrestricted internet access for internal employees? I tried removing the access-list 106 permit ip any any. That ended up being a very short-lived config :) Would something like access-list 106 permit ip 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.255 any on an "outside-inbound" work?

    Read the article

  • Windows Server 2008 R2 DNS - One IP, multiple servers

    - by Blu Dragon
    I need opinions and examples on how to best to accomplish the setup I am looking for. I have a public-facing AD domain server with one public IP address. I have setup an external zone for example.com and I successfully have my own name servers pointing to it at ns0.example.com and ns1.example.com. I also have an internal zone for my private network at home.example.com. I am behind a router with the domain server in the DMZ. I want dev.example.com to be accessible from the outside world over https and to point to internal IP address 192.168.1.78. Likewise, I want www.example.com to be accessible from the outside world and point to internal IP address 192.168.1.79. Both dev and www servers are CentOS 5.6 VMs running inside of Hyper-V on the domain server (bad idea I know but I am limited on hardware atm). What is best way to achieve this? From what I have read and researched on Google, I may need to setup a reverse proxy but I am not sure how well that will work with SSL.

    Read the article

  • Apache reverse proxy access control

    - by Steven
    I have an Apache reverse proxy that is currently reverse proxying for a few sites. However i am now going to be adding a new site (lets call it newsite.com) that should only be accessible by certain IP's. Is this doable using Apache as a reverse proxy? I use VirtualHosts for the sites that are being proxyied. I have tried using the Allow/Deny directives in combination with the Location statements. For example: <VirtualHost *:80> Servername newsite.com <Location http://newsite.com> Order Deny,Allow Deny from all Allow from x.x.x.x </Location> <IfModule rewrite_module> RewriteRule ^/$ http://newsite.internal.com [proxy] </IfModule> I have also tried configuring allow/deny specicaily for the site in the Proxy directives, for example <Proxy http://newsite.com/> Order deny,allow Deny from all Allow from x.x.x.x </Proxy> I still have this definition for the rest of the proxied sites however. <Proxy *> Order deny,allow Allow from all </Proxy> No matter what i do it seems to be accessible from any where. Is this because of the definition for all other proxied sites. Is there an order to which it applies Proxy directives. I have had the newsite one both before and after the * one, and also within the VirtualHost statement.

    Read the article

  • Returning a 404 page when a folder is accessed from one domain, but allowing access from other domains and IP addresses

    - by okw
    Situation: I want to return a 404 page ("404.php") when a folder ("hidden") is accessed from the example.com domain. I want the same folder to be accessible from a subdomain ("hidden.example.com") or from a different domain ("hidden.com") which are both configured in a single VirtualHost entry. The server has multiple IP addresses that it listens on. Each IP address serves identical content from the example.com domain (sharing a VirtualHost entry.) I want the folder to be accessible from the IP address. The server is configured to use SSL/TLS/HTTPS. HTTPS is optional on example.com, but HTTPS is enforced in the .htaccess file for the hidden folder using a rewrite rule shown below. /www/hidden/.htaccess RewriteCond %{HTTPS} !=on RewriteRule .* https://%{SERVER_NAME}%{REQUEST_URI} [R,L] I know that {SERVER_ADDR} gives the server's IP address, but does it return the one that the client is requesting from? I'm also starting to think that something in the VirtualHosts file would be more appropriate. Any thoughts on this? What should be allowed: http://87.65.43.21/hidden/ https://87.65.43.21/hidden/ http://12.34.56.78/hidden/ https://12.34.56.78/hidden/ http://hidden.example.com/ https://hidden.example.com/ http://hidden.com/ https://hidden.com/ http://www.hidden.com/ https://www.hidden.com/ What should be 404-ed with 404.php http://example.com/hidden/ https://example.com/hidden/ http://www.example.com/hidden/ https://www.example.com/hidden/ http://example.com/hidden/hiddenfile.php https://example.com/hidden/hiddenfile.php etc. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Windows - Website unaccessible only on windows pcs in LAN

    - by DorentuZ
    For serveral days now, a website isn't accessible on a single pc in the LAN. On the other pc's, it works just fine. And it's just a single website that's not accessible as far as I know of. The website generates a timeout on every single web browser I've tried (IE8, Firefox and Chrome). However, traceroute, nmap and telnet all work just fine. I've even tried multiple user accounts and safe mode, but that didn't work either. As a side note: using a linux live cd did work and I could access the website without any problems. The hosts file is the windows default, the ip- and dns settings on the network adapter normal as well. No strange processes are running and no viruses found. According to tcpview and netstat there are connections to the domain, but every request in the browser results in a timeout.. Any idea what's happening? Update: All of the computers on the network running Windows (any version) are showing this problem now. The website is still working under linux and mac osx. So, it has to be related to some kind of windows update (although I haven't installed any on one computer in the past week, which I've set to do manual updates only)..

    Read the article

  • transparently proxying a firewalled web application from a non-standard port to port 80

    - by Terrence Brannon
    I have a web application that serves on port 8088 on $server. However, the only port accessible from remote on $server is port 80. Furthermore, only CGI programs can execute on port 80. I would like to write a CGI program accessible via port 80 that allows one to use the web app running on port 8088. From my view, an ideal solution would be some sort of Java web browser that simply opened up a window and allowed me to use the program running on that port. The CGI program would simply initiate a web browser applet or something. I wrote a Perl CGI program that does it, but I really would like a more transparent solution: my $q = new CGI; print $q->header; use LWP::Simple; use HTML::Tree; my $base = "http://localhost:8088"; my $request = $base; my $qurl = $q->param('url'); if (length($qurl) > 1) { warn "long $qurl"; $request = "$base$qurl"; } else { warn "short $qurl"; } my $content = get($request); my $tree = HTML::TreeBuilder->new_from_content($content); my @a = $tree->look_down('_tag' => 'a'); for my $a (@a) { my $url = $a->attr('href'); next if index($url, '#') > -1 ; $url = "?url=$url"; $a->attr(href => $url); } print $tree->as_HTML;

    Read the article

  • eXist-db: can't start webstart client on a closed port, reverse proxied via apache

    - by rvdb
    I am configuring an Apache HTTP server so it reverse proxies requests starting with /app/ to an eXist-db instance running in a Tomcat server, on port 8082. This port has been closed in the firewall and is inaccessible to the outer world. Following the eXist documentation, I have following rules in place in my httpd.conf file: ProxyPass /apps/ http://localhost:8082/ ProxyPassReverse /apps/ http://localhost:8082/ ProxyPassReverseCookiePath /apps/ / All goes well for requests to e.g. 'http://mydomain/apps/exist/index.xml'. Yet, the webstart client (accessible at 'http://localhost:8082/exist/webstart/exist.jnlp' on the web server) doesn't work behind the proxy. While 'http://mydomain/apps/exist/webstart/exist.jnlp' does generate a valid exist.jnlp file, that file can't be executed. The reason seems quite obvious: apparently, the eXist-db instance generating the exist.jnlp file only sees the proxied request as: 'http://localhost:8082/exist/webstart/exist.jnlp'. Yet, since the exist.jnlp file is executed on the client, that reference is meaningless (unless the client computer happens to have an eXist-db instance running on that port). Executing the exist.jnlp file hence fails with a 'connection refused' error. Yet, there's no problem at all connecting a local eXist-db Java client to the proxied eXist instance with the URL xmldb:exist://mydomain/apps/exist/xmlrpc. The problem lies in generating the webstart exist.jnlp file, which seems to need access to a publicly accessible URL. However, opening port 8082 and replacing the Proxy references to 'http://localhost:8082' with 'http://mydomain:8082' IMO rather destroys the point of reverse proxying. Do others have had success reverse proxying eXist-db on a closed port behind Apache? Are there perhaps some Proxy configuration settings I have overlooked (I'm no expert at all) that can make eXist see the original request instead of the proxied one? Kind regards, Ron

    Read the article

  • Unable to remove Read-Only attribute from folder in Windows XP

    - by elcuco
    I have this directory which I cannot remove the read only attribute from. The computer is running XP SP2 (or SP3, not sure) and the directory sits in a NTFS file system. Looking into the web I found this: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/256614 which tells that if the directory is "customized" it's treated as a system folder and thus "read only". I don't think this is a scenario in my case, but anyway it's not helping, their recommendation is more or less: attr -r -s /d /s d:\data and this is not working for me. Any other ideas? More info: The directory is served to an HTTP server (wamp) and the directory is an SVN check out. What happens is that the web server cannot write files into the directory (imagechace from drupal is you are really interested). Edit 2: The original post claimed that the directory sits on a VFAT FS, however I booted Fedora 11 from livecd and the partition is marked as NTFS. Edit 3: I left the company which I worked on, on which this situation happened... so I cannot fully close this question. But things get even worse: I tested the "attr -r" answer I put, it did not work for me, and now the developer said that it worked for her. A nice WTF moment. Probably a reboot helped... Sorry for loosing details. If anyone has the same problem, and one of the answers helps him - please comment.

    Read the article

  • Port Forwarding failing only to Ubuntu servers from Draytek router

    - by Rufinus
    I know this is a kinda unusal question, but Draytek support (..which is very eager to solve the issue) seems to reach its limits. Scenario: Draytek Vigor Multiwan router with current firmware. Multiple WAN IP Aliases on one of the wan ports DMZ (or port forwarding doesnt matter) from wan ip alias to internal host currently i have two internal hosts: 192.168.0.51 (Ubuntu) 192.168.0.53 (Debian) both should be accessible from outside via one of the wan ip aliases. both are accessible with their internal ip's at all times (!) If the router gots restartet, both external ips are forwarding to its internal hosts. But after a few minutes up to 2 hours, the ubuntu host is no longer reachable via its external interface. The debian hosts on the other hand is reachable. In what does ubuntu differs from debian ? I know at least of one user with the exact same problem. see http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=10994279 Any ideas ? TIA EDIT: via ping diagnostics directly on vigor, 192.168.0.53 is pingable, 192.168.0.51 is not. but both hosts are perfectly reachable from anywhere inside the network. if i restart ubuntu networking it works again for a short time.... i'm out of ideas.. EDIT 2: after further investigation, i noticed a ping from .51 to the network (or a host in the internet) is enough to make the port-forwarding working again. So i will add an Cronjob as a "keep-alive" ping. This will solve the problem, but the reason for this behaivor is still in the dark. Thanks to all commentors.

    Read the article

  • pfSense router on a LAN with two gateways

    - by JohnCC
    I have a LAN with an ADSL modem/router on it. We have just gained an alternative high-speed internet connection at our location, and I want to connect the LAN to it, eventually dropping the ADSL. I've chosen to use a small PFSense box to connect the LAN to the new WAN connection. Two servers on the LAN run services accessible to the outside via NAT using the single ADSL WAN IP. We have DNS records which point to this IP. I want to do the same via the new connection, using the WAN IP there. That connection permits multiple IPs, so I have configured pfSense using virtual IP's, 1:1 NAT and appropriate firewall rules. When I change the servers' default gateway settings to the pfSense box, I can access the services via the new WAN IPs without a problem. However, I can no longer access them via the old WAN IP. If I set the servers' default gateway back to the ADSL router, then the opposite is true - I can access the services via the ADSL IP, but not via the new one. In the first case, I believe this is because an incoming SYN packet arrives at the ADSL WAN IP, and is NAT'd and sent to the internal IP of the server. The server responds with a SYN/ACK which it sends via its default gateway, the pfSense box. The pfSense box sees a SYN/ACK that it saw no SYN for and drops the packet. Is there any sensible way around this? I would like the services to be accessible via both IPs for a short period at least, since once I change the DNS it will take a while before everyone picks up the new address.

    Read the article

  • Homebrew large data cluster access for 2 user levels?

    - by Yegor
    The title probably makes little sense, so here is an example. I have a file hosting site, that serves a large amount of semi-randomly accessed files. The setup is as follows: High horsepower front-end +DB server that also does encoding for files that need encoding Fresh file server, which stores newly uploaded content, thats probably (and usually) rapidly accessible, which has 500GB of raided SSD storage, that can push over 3GBit of traffic. 3 cheap node servers, containing 2 x 750GB SATA drives in raid1, where files older than 2 weeks are archived, from the SSD server (mentioned above). Files on each server are accessed via subdomains (via modsec) in a straight forward fashion (server1.domain.com, server2.domain.com, etc) Where I have the problem is this. I introduced a "premium" service where people pay a small fee every month, and get ad-free, quick accesses to stuff on the site. Once they are logged in, they access same files via premium.server1.domain.com via a different modsec script, with a different pass phrase. That all works fine and dandy.... except the cheap node servers are all IO bound, so accessing the files on them via a different, unsaturated network makes no difference, since it cannot read off the drive fast enough. What would be a good way to make files on the site be accessible via 2 different network routes, 1 of which will be saturated (the "free network") while all other files are on an un-saturated "premium" network?

    Read the article

  • auto-mounting shared folders in VirtualBox

    - by brannerchinese
    I am writing to ask what the effect of the auto-mounting process is in VirtualBox, and where the folders can be accessed within a guest Linux system if auto-mount is used. I have VirtualBox 4.0.4 installed on Mac OS 10.6.7, with Guest Additions apparently running correctly. The guest OS is Ubuntu 10.04, and I observe no apparent problems with it. I find that if the shared folders have "auto-mount" unchecked in the VirtualBox settings, they can then be mounted using the prescribed syntax sudo mount -t vboxsf folder_name path_to_mount_point and all works as it is supposed to. But if the auto-mount option is checked, then I find that I can no longer mount the shared folders manually. I get the error mounting failed with the error: Invalid argument and the folders also do not appear to mount anywhere else accessible to me. Using the syntax sudo mount -t vboxsf without specifying a path installs them in /media, with their names prefixed with sf_, but they are not easily accessible there and I have not been able to change their owner using chown, either. Thanks for your patient explanation.

    Read the article

  • 2 servers on 2 networks in same office

    - by irot
    Hello Gents, My office doesn't have a "server guy" in employ, so I'm stuck with having to fix server issues for now. There are 2 servers in our office, both are file/web servers only accessible via LAN. They are currently on the same network, so no issue there. Problem is, we recently got a static IP to use, but it's with a different ISP, so now we have 2 routers in our office. I would like to open one of the servers to the public as a web/FTP server. But if I hook a server up to the new router, users will no longer be able to access the files shared on that server (because they're on different networks). How can I go about making one server accessible to the public using the static IP line, but still able to share the files on it to the users connected to the other network? The server I want to make public is running Windows Server 2008, the other server Windows Server 2003. And as far as I know, IP addresses are assigned by the router. I'm just a developer, don't know much about networking. Thank you in advance.

    Read the article

  • EC2 instances keep becoming inaccessible via SSH, can I use elastic loadbalancer to check SSH connectivity?

    - by Rick
    This is mainly an issue for my development ec2 server as it seems that my instance keeps becoming inaccessible via SSH. It happened yesterday so I killed that one and started a new one and happened again later today. The server still works, my web application is accessible in a web browser but whenever I try to connect via SSH I get a pemrission denied (public key) error message in my terminal. I am 100% sure I am doing nothing wrong as I can create a new instance of the exact same AMI (its a personal custom AMI), change absolutely nothing, including using the same .pem key, and then am able to SSH into that new instance using the exact same command as before (just changing the IP address). I understand that ec2 can have issues but having this happen every day seems a bit odd.. I am using an m2.xlarge instance so I don't know if these tend to be unstable, in the past I have used a small instance and had it running for months with no problems which is why I find this so odd. I am looking into using loadbalancing but it seems the only "health" checks they offer is for http or tcp so I'm not sure if I can make it monitor for SSH connectivity. This is important for development as I may make 1-2 new pushes of an application a day and use SSH to do this. I have a designer that needs to have the app always accessible as he works with the front-end files to test output with the live application. Anyways, any advice / info is appreciated

    Read the article

  • Windows Server - share files without access for administrator

    - by Pawel
    We have a MS Windows Server 2008 R8 based server that is administrated by our IT department. We would like to achieve two things simultaneously: A folder on the server, containing several thousand files (new files added frequently) that is accessible to some ActiveDirectory users (e.g. board of directors) but is not accessible by IT department employees IT department employees still maintain rights to administrate the server, including installing new software and services We already checked some solutions: Using NTFS access rights. Unfortunately IT (members of "Administrators" group) can set themselves as new owners of the files and change the permissions so that they gain access to the files. Enabling EFS. Unfortunately even if you do not allow IT to access files, they still can disable EFS completely because they have administrative rights. Moreover as far as I know you have to manually add permissions for all users but the owner for each new file - very inconvenient. Creating a new role for the IT department that has all the privileges apart from taking ownership of files. Unfortunately if you're not a member of the Administrators group, you cannot install new software, no matter what privileges you add to the role. TrueCrypt - nice free encryption software, but with poor sharing capabilities. You can either mount an encryption container on the server (and then IT has access to its contents) or you mount them locally but only one user can mount it for writing. AxCrypt - free encryption software that enables file-by-file encryption on the server. There are some disadvantages though - you have to manually encrypt each new file added. The files have their extensions changes. You can only set one password for all files (so all users have to know this one password). Any other ideas? Our budget is limited so enterprise-class software from Symantec or PGP would probably be not an option.

    Read the article

  • How configure 2 Lan cards in Windows 7/8 pc one to connect to Internet and other to Local Network

    - by Maharshi Raval
        I am about to install a dedicated VOIP server in our office. It is a 3CX pbx system on Windows 7/8 machine. The environment currently is a Windows SBS 2011 with 8 client machines. I want to use a dedicated broadband connection for the PBX (3CX) box, but the box also needs to be accessible in the local network as we will be using IP Phones and software IP phones. How configure two network cards on PBX box, so that one will be always used to connect to our SIP host over the Internet and the other will be connected to local network accessible from other client pc to connect to the pbx system. It must be noted that currently the Windows SBS 2011 acts as the Primary Domain Controller and gateway for all the client machines.     I cannot use a load balancer as it will conflict and cause issues within the current setup of our SBS2011 as it is also our Exchange Server. Any input is much appreciated. thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • How configure 2 Lan cards in Windows 7/8 pc one to connect to Internet and other to Local Network

    - by Maharshi Raval
        I am about to install a dedicated VOIP server in our office. It is a 3CX pbx system on Windows 7/8 machine. The environment currently is a Windows SBS 2011 with 8 client machines. I want to use a dedicated broadband connection for the PBX (3CX) box, but the box also needs to be accessible in the local network as we will be using IP Phones and software IP phones. How configure two network cards on PBX box, so that one will be always used to connect to our SIP host over the Internet and the other will be connected to local network accessible from other client pc to connect to the pbx system. It must be noted that currently the Windows SBS 2011 acts as the Primary Domain Controller and gateway for all the client machines.     I cannot use a load balancer as it will conflict and cause issues within the current setup of our SBS2011 as it is also our Exchange Server. Any input is much appreciated. thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • No LAN and SMB access, and Explorer not responsive, when using a second connection

    - by Lorenzo
    I apologize if this is a duplicate question, I know that there are several questions about multiple connection (LAN + LAN and LAN + dialup) but I haven't been able to find one that fits my scenario. I'm still using Windows XP on my corporate laptop, and I'm connected to the corporate LAN via Ethernet. The LAN NIC has a public IP address, although not accessible externally, obtained via the corporate DNS server. This connection is firewalled and requires a proxy to access Internet. To access Internet sites blocked by the corporate firewall, I use my smartphone via USB tethering. It is seen as a new LAN interface, and I get a private IP address (class 192.168..). There are two problems: The LAN is not accessible, as the default gateway goes to the tethering NIC. I'd like to solve this, but I can live with it. My PC becomes unresponsive if I use Windows Explorer to view local files, or even when I open the start menu. I guess that this is caused by attemps to connect to a mapped network drive. But I disabled the "Client for Microsoft Networks" in the tethering NIC. Why the system still hangs? Of course if I disable the Ethernet NIC, Explorer stops hanging. If you need further details, add a comment. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to remove NTFS system files from a previous Vista installation

    - by Boldewyn
    I'm trying to shrink my system partition under Win Vista. It's all fine, except that in front of the last 300MB of the volume sits a single file, that cannot be moved by defrag or other means from its position. It's called C:\$Extend\$UsnJrnl:$J, and my assumtion is, that it is left from a previous installation of Vista, when I re-set up the system. Now, googling for this kind of files brings interesting results, but no solution to my problem: Files left on the disk can become ownerless in a new setup of Windows and inaccessible (even for administrators). To be able to access them again, I found the tip to use takeown to re-assign them to the Admin group (or anyone else). Works like a charm for normal files, but not for the C:\$Extend stuff. The C:\$Extend folder is a system folder of the NTFS file system, where the journal is stored (especially in a file called $UsnJrnl:$Data, whose name is surprisingly close to mine). You can delete the journal with fsutil usn /delete C:, however, this doesn't work from within the booted system (as I found out trying). Also, I'm not quite sure of the side effects. You can't move the NTFS own files with standard defrag tools. The same holds, by the way, for not accessible files. Every bit of knowledge out there is targeted to either not accessible files or the $Extend NTFS stuff, but noone addresses my problem involving both, an inaccessible system file. Question: How can I remove this file, or at least how can I move it on the disk?

    Read the article

  • Windows Server - share files without access for administrator

    - by Pawel
    We have a MS Windows Server 2008 R8 based server that is administrated by our IT department. We would like to achieve two things simultaneously: A folder on the server, containing several thousand files (new files added frequently) that is accessible to some ActiveDirectory users (e.g. board of directors) but is not accessible by IT department employees IT department employees still maintain rights to administrate the server, including installing new software and services We already checked some solutions: Using NTFS access rights. Unfortunately IT (members of "Administrators" group) can set themselves as new owners of the files and change the permissions so that they gain access to the files. Enabling EFS. Unfortunately even if you do not allow IT to access files, they still can disable EFS completely because they have administrative rights. Moreover as far as I know you have to manually add permissions for all users but the owner for each new file - very inconvenient. Creating a new role for the IT department that has all the privileges apart from taking ownership of files. Unfortunately if you're not a member of the Administrators group, you cannot install new software, no matter what privileges you add to the role. TrueCrypt - nice free encryption software, but with poor sharing capabilities. You can either mount an encryption container on the server (and then IT has access to its contents) or you mount them locally but only one user can mount it for writing. AxCrypt - free encryption software that enables file-by-file encryption on the server. There are some disadvantages though - you have to manually encrypt each new file added. The files have their extensions changes. You can only set one password for all files (so all users have to know this one password). Any other ideas? Our budget is limited so enterprise-class software from Symantec or PGP would probably be not an option.

    Read the article

  • SAFE MODE Restriction in effect. The script not allowed to access directory owned by uid

    - by user57221
    I am running a dedicated server with multiple websites. I have created a global directory for common scripts for all websites, rather than repeating them in every website directory. How can I make this global directory accessible for all website. I am getting following error. Warning: require_once() [function.require-once]: SAFE MODE Restriction in effect. The script whose uid is XXXX is not allowed to access /vhosts/globallibrary/Zend/Application.php owned by uid XXXX I have change the ownership of global directory for X website. so it works fine for X website. latter I added another website Y Now I am getting the same error again. If I change the CHOWN for Y website then X website will have the same error. I don't want to disable the safemode restriction. Is there a work around, so that this global dir will be accessible by all website. I am getting following error in my browser when I try to access global directory. Global directory is on same level as all other websites. Is this a good practice to enable safemode for websites?

    Read the article

  • deploy git project and permission issue

    - by nixer
    I have project hosted with gitolite on my own server, and I would like to deploy the whole project from gitolite bare repository to apache accessible place, by post-receive hook. I have next hook content echo "starting deploy..." WWW_ROOT="/var/www_virt.hosting/domain_name/htdocs/" GIT_WORK_TREE=$WWW_ROOT git checkout -f exec chmod -R 750 $WWW_ROOT exec chown -R www-data:www-data $WWW_ROOT echo "finished" hook can't be finished without any error message. chmod: changing permissions of `/var/www_virt.hosting/domain_name/file_name': Operation not permitted means that git has no enough right to make it. The git source path is /var/lib/gitolite/project.git/, which is owned by gitolite:gitolite And with this permissions redmine (been working under www-data user) can't achieve git repository to fetch all changes The whole project should be placed here: /var/www_virt.hosting/domain_name/htdocs/, which is owned by www-data:www-data. What changes I should do, to work properly post-receive hook in git, and redmine with repository ? what I did, is: # id www-data uid=33(www-data) gid=33(www-data) groups=33(www-data),119(gitolite) # id gitolite uid=110(gitolite) gid=119(gitolite) groups=119(gitolite),33(www-data) does not helped. I want to have no any problem to work apache (to view project), redmine to read source files for project (under git) and git (doing deploy to www-data accessible path) what should I do ?

    Read the article

  • Assigning IPs to OpenVZ containers

    - by Vojtech
    I have recently bought myself a physical server and I am trying to create containers which would have their IPs. The physical machine has both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. I have accessible another IPv4 and some other IPv6 addresses which I would like to assign to the container. I managed to assign the addresses as follows: # vzctl set 101 --ipadd 144.76.195.252 --save I can ping to the machine from the physical machine, but not from the outside world. This also applies to the IPv6 I assigned as well. This is ifconfig of the physical machine: eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr d4:3d:7e:ec:e0:04 inet addr:144.76.195.232 Bcast:144.76.195.255 Mask:255.255.255.224 inet6 addr: 2a01:4f8:200:71e7::2/64 Scope:Global inet6 addr: fe80::d63d:7eff:feec:e004/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:217895 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:16779 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:322481419 (307.5 MiB) TX bytes:1672628 (1.5 MiB) venet0 Link encap:UNSPEC HWaddr 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00 inet6 addr: fe80::1/128 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:12 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:12 errors:0 dropped:3 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:1108 (1.0 KiB) TX bytes:1108 (1.0 KiB) This is ifconfig of the OpenVZ container: # ifconfig venet0 Link encap:UNSPEC HWaddr 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00 inet addr:127.0.0.2 P-t-P:127.0.0.2 Bcast:0.0.0.0 Mask:255.255.255.255 inet6 addr: 2a01:4f8:200:71e7::3/64 Scope:Global UP BROADCAST POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:12 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:12 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:1108 (1.0 KiB) TX bytes:1108 (1.0 KiB) venet0:0 Link encap:UNSPEC HWaddr 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00 inet addr:144.76.195.252 P-t-P:144.76.195.252 Bcast:144.76.195.252 Mask:255.255.255.255 UP BROADCAST POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MTU:1500 Metric:1 What do I need to do to have the container accessible from the outside world? What could I have forgotten? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Serve web application error messages from Http server

    - by licorna
    I have nginx as a http server with tomcat as a backend (using proxy_pass). It works great but I want to define my own error pages (404, 500, etc.) and that they are served by nginx and not tomcat. For example I have the following resource: https://domain.com/resource which doesn't exist. If I [GET] that URL then I get a Not Found message from Tomcat and not from nginx. What I want is that every time Tomcat responds with a 404 (or any other error message) nginx sends itself a message to the user: some html file accessible by nginx. The way I have my nginx server configured is very easy, just: location / { proxy_pass http://localhost:8080/<webapp-name>/; } And I've configured port 8080, which is tomcat, as not accessible from outside this machine. I don't think that using different location directives in nginx configuration will work, because there are some resources that depend on the URL: https://domain.com/customer/<non-existent-customer-name>/[GET] Will always return 404 (or any other error message), while: https://domain.com/customer/<existent-customer>/[GET] Will return anything different from 404 (the customer exists). Is there any way of serving Tomcat (Application Server) error messages with Nginx (http Server)? To check the message sent by the proxy_pass directive and act upon it?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50  | Next Page >